Friday, December 21, 2012

A new study suggests that “gender equality” in the workplace
is not arriving as fast as its advocates had predicted. The reason: ingrown behaviors that constitute what is called “gender
identity.”

One might look at the evidence and say that the grandiose
attempt to re-engineer human nature has not been working out very well.

The reason: human nature has not been willing to play along.

But this is not the way research is conducted today. It does not ask whether we might have misunderstood something about human nature. It asserts that our concept of gender identity is still
caught in the big, bad 1950s.

It does not seem to cross anyone’s mind, but the role
of male provider was not invented in the 1950s. It is a universal human character
trait, one that has existed in all cultures at all times.

A zealot never lets reality get in the way of a good story
line.

The data is the data. The interpretation is another story.
Researchers interpret data in order to prove their own bias: namely that a
great historical wave is washing over the world, inevitably bringing “gender
equality” to the workplace.

Women, and even men, are being told that they must ride the
great historical wave, lest they remain mired in the 1950s.

It’s a choice that isn’t really a choice.

As a rhetorical strategy, it is designed to draw you into
the feminist ecosphere but it will also deprive you of your free will.

Here is the research data. Women apparently earn less than
they otherwise might because if they out-earn men they will have more trouble finding husbands. If they do marry and make more than their husbands their marriages will be unhappier and they will be more likely to get divorced.

I will tell you that most women knew this already. They do not speak of it very often in public because it is not politically correct.

The conclusion: women who want to have happy marriages are
more likely to underachieve on the job.

They
find that women who, based on their skills and backgrounds, would be expected
to out-earn their husbands are more likely to exit the labor force—a very
costly way of maintaining gender identities and restoring familial harmony.
Among those women who remain in the workforce, their actual earnings fall short
of what the economists’ wage model would have predicted for them, especially if
their predicted income was higher than their husband’s.

The studies also show that women who out-earn their husbands
compensate by doing more, not less of the housework. You would think, Fisman
says, that the partner who earns the least outside of the home would do more of
the work within the home.

Such is not the case, because women adopt more wifely roles
around the house in order to prevent their husbands from losing face in front
of the children.

A woman who has high earning potential will thus be faced
with a difficult choice: career or marriage? Does she want to break the glass
ceiling or have a harmonious family life?

You might be thinking that a man does not have to worry
about out-earning his wife. You might believe that this is a grave injustice.

Until the new order descends on the planet, it is also
reality.

A woman does have a free choice. The choice entails
sacrifice.

A woman might be willing to accept the risk that comes with
being a high-earner or she might feel that it is not worth the cost in personal
unhappiness?

The choice is hers and it ought to be a free choice.

Feminism does not see things this way. It believes that a
woman’s primary allegiance is to feminism. It tells women that they need to strike a blow for gender
equality in the workplace, no matter the personal cost.

Thus, feminists thrill to the example set by Hillary
Clinton.

Clinton seems never to have compromised her feminist ideals
in favor of her marriage. She has broken through glass ceilings and is still
married.

Amazingly, no one seems to care that her husband was
constantly cheating on her. She made a large personal sacrifice for the cause.

One wonders how many of the young women you idolize Hillary
Clinton would want her marriage.

How many young women would want to bear the stigma of being
the only woman Bill Clinton doesn’t want to….

In truth, Hillary Clinton made a choice and had every right
to sacrifice her personal happiness to a cause.

This does not necessarily put her on the right side of any
historical wave. It tells us where her values lie.

Then again, Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly head of policy
planning in the State Department recently made a very different choice.

She resigned her position at the State Department because
she saw that her children were suffering from her absence.

One does not know whether Slaughter’s marriage was also being
damaged by her new position, but she made a free choice in favor of domestic
harmony and the well-being of her children.

One applauds Slaughter for fulfilling her parental
responsibilities and for putting them ahead of her career goals.

Read Slaughter cover story, plus 100s of comments on website. To me, main topic & pith of story was Her, and other female Elite Climbers (who want kids, which is commendable). S. wants lots of child care, "family friendly" workplaces, work fm home, and other accommodations.

She's miffed she had to quit her State D. job, and settle for President/Dean of Ivy L. Univ!!! I wonder how her Wants comport with Highest Level Responsibilities.

Is it just me or does it not seem that feminists want everything, but don't want to take responsibility for the things that make it possible? It is just "gimme, gimme, gimme free stuff because I deserve it. Is this not the epitome of selfishness? Poor little princess has to deal with problems.If feminism is such a great thing why are so many of them miserable and worse yet trying to make others miserable to feel good about themselves? Doesn't it get tiring constantly playing the victim and whining about almost every aspect of your life? Are these people really functioning adults? It does not seem so since so many of them want the government to be daddy and provide for their many needs and desires. Lord help their children because they are being raised by people who seem incapable of being adults themselves.And we are to take these people seriously?

As you correctly assess, I was around during the 1950s, but I was not a little boy for most of it.

Unfortunately, the 1950s has been demonized beyond recognition by those who want to rationalize the countercultural revolution that occurred in the 1960s.

Obviously, everything was not right in the 1950s, but, to take the example of segregation, the Warren court, led by a chief justice nominated by Eisenhower that decided Brown v. Board of Education. And it was Eisenhower who forced the integration of Little Rock High School.It was Eisenhower who shut down Joe McCarthy. It was Eisenhower who refused to get involved militarily in Vietnam.

Nobody would force modern women back into the kitchen, because modern women cannot cook and would simply break everything and ruin the food. They are useless at impersonating men and now useless at being women, essentially they are useless.

Bollick and her ilk are now just members of the freak show, there to point and laugh at and to provide a lesson to future generations.